Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-28
THE ANARCHISTS
THEIR PETITION BEFORE THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT.
The Argument for Writ Of Error Begun
by Hon. J. Randolph Tucker.
lRY telegraph to tho pIspatch.l

BY telegraph 10 tho Dispatch.l
WASHINGTON, October 27.-The anticipation
OF argument before the United States Supreme
Court to-day upon the petition for writ OF
error In the Chicago Anarchists cases attracted
10 the Capital crowd Of eager people who
seemed a. anxious 10 gain admission 70 tho
courtroom as II the Anarchists themselves
we're 20 he present In chains and legfetters
ana TO argue their own cases In person. More
than an hour before the court assembled the
courtroom was densely packed with people
who not only occupied all the seats provided
fot spectators, but encrOached upon Tue pro-
cincte Of the bar and stood In clossly-packed
thrOngs In the open spaces on zach side OF the
door Even out In the corridor there was a
crowd endeavoring 20 AT least get glimpse u
the interior Of the courtroom through the On
trance. The audience was destined, however.
10 he. At least for time, disappointed. When
the court was called TO order tl2 o'clock and tho
candidates for admission 10 the bar hal been
sworn the chief Justice announced that the court
would proceed with the unfinished business 81
yesterday. This unfinished business WAS the
case from Louisiana, which. however important
TO The lifgants had very little popular Interest.
Alta few minutes after O'clo *, AT tho con-
ciusion Of the argument In tho Louisiana case.
the Chief Justice said: 1--WE are ready now TO
hear the motion for a writ Of error In the
case Of Spies aud others"
General h. i. Butor asked the court how
much time would be allowed for argument.
His brother MIR. Tucker, represented, he said,
majority Of the petitioners: he himself r0-
presented two Of them, whose cases were IN
some respects different from those Of the
others. lie would not speak merely for the
sake Of speaking, but no would not Ike TO be
hurried.
The Chief Justice asked how much tins no
desired.
General Butler said he would ike an hour
and half for himself and an hour AMI half
FOR his associate. Mr.. Tucker.
HE Chief Justice said: Very we'll We VIII
allow you three hours on a side.
Acknowledgement II mt, Of Illinois said that
as he and his associates did not yet know what
scope the argument would take he could nos
say how much time they would desire. He
would like, however, 20 have an opportunity
given % his associate. Mr.. Grinnell, 10 speak.
The Chief Justice said that each side would
be allowed three hours and that Grinnell
might speak.
At quarter past Hon. J. Randolph
Tucker opened the argument IN support OF the
petition for a writ Of error. Re said that IL was
not necessary for him % show rs condition
precedent 10 the granting Of the writ that the
action complained OF in the court below ~
actually repugnant 10 or In violation OF the
Constitution II WAS only necessary 70 snow
that conflict had arisen: that there was queS-
ton Whether the action complained Of was not
rOpugnant 10 the Constitution. That was
enough 10 give this court jurisdiction. II
was the object OF the statute Of 1861 10
give free access 10 this court IN all cases where
there was a question Of this Kind. IL was not
necessary % show repugnancy, but only con
nici. II there Is conflict, then this court has
jurisdiction: and II il has jurisdiction then the
petitioners are entitled % their writ a. right
"1his COURT said Mr.. Tucker. sis the city ot
refuge from the aycnCer OF blood, ana any
man who comes here and takes hold OF the
horns OF Justice should not be- rcDulsei." Tho
policy Of tins court, he said, had beon 10 dcil
literally with petitions for writ5 OF error IN
civil cases How much more should 10 deal
literally with petition for WIFI 81
error in criminal case involving the issues OF
life and dcath-in case whore life was about
10 be taken away in violation OF the Constltl-
ton. Mr. Tucker then proceeded 10 carefully
analyze the fourteenth amendment and an at
tempt 10 ascertain the meaning OF the words
"due process Of law
In arguing upon the merits OF the csse Mr..
Tucker said that il was not necessary that tbs
law Of the state should bs absolutely and on
It's Recommendations in order 10 give this
court Jurisdiction of the case under IT, II =
law seemingly fair and just on It's face shpuld
have put upon II by the state courts Goa
struction contrary TO tho Constitution tna' wa
enough to give this court jurisdi 'tiOI.
If any Department Of the state gOVernm snt
violates the terms Of the fourteenth amend
meut il is the state which violates It.
Mr.. Tucker then reviewed the history Of tho
adoption Of the fourteenth amendment, a1l
said that although II was originally ntenie !
10 guarantee particularly the rights OF on
iranchised blacks, there WAS no reason why
white ctiZons should not also enjoy the beneni
of IT'S provisions. He quoted tho fourteenth
amend nent and discussed the meaning Il the
words educ process Of law aud said that a.
though IL hal been held by this rOlri that 5
trial without indictment by q grand jury might
he "A "duc process OF law and might be per-
fectly constitutional. il had never been held
nor intimated that trial by petit jury could
be DISPENSED with. IL seemed, he said, % be-
everywhere conceded that due process Oh
law" required trial by jury OF ones peers
ffrtfy
adjudgcd cases in support OF this position MI.
Tucker said: NOW. il | have succeeded IN
showing that due process Of law means a
trial by jury, the question arises, What Kind OF
2 iury. for il is the essence 81 jury trial that
II shall not be before packed jury; tina, a
Juror shall not have made up his mind before
| ths case r. heard that | ought 70 be hanged
| IL is essential that "a Jury should be unbiased
unpreJudiced, aud impartial, ana that II
| should not he a class jury
Mr. Tucker then asserted that tho jury Law
| Of the state OF Illinois was uncon5ututiont III
! that it provided that the forming Of an opihlon
! from reports or from newspaper accounts OF a
certain transaction should not necessarily us
qualify person having such an opinion from
! sitting in judgment on that transaction IA q
| Juror. Even. although the law might seem q
| ue fair and just II 10y construction sni admin
| istration il were made % deny 70 prisoner
the right Of trial by fair and impartial jury
| then such a construction and administration
constituted the law and made Il unconstitl'
| tlonal.
| Turning TO another question raised. which
| he said, WAS q new one in this court. he quote.
| the second clause Of the fourteenth amend
| ment % the effect that "n0 state shall max
or enforce any law which shall abrdge Ia
| privileges or immuniues OF "a citzen OF Ia
| United states.
Amonr the privileges and immunities thu
! guaranteed by the fourteenth amendmen
were he cOntcnded. those set forth in the mrs
ten amendments to the Federal Con titution
such "a the Fright Of citizens 10 secure IN thei
| persons, houses. papers, and ELECTS dgain-
! Unreasonable searches and seizures dOurt
| amcndmenD, aud the immunity designated Il
| tie clause Of the NTH amendment which pr.
vides that "nO person shall be compelled i
any criminal case to be witness against him
self"
! IL had been maintained, he said. that thes
first ten amendments 10 the Constitution Wer
the limitations Of the Federal power only, but !
his OF inion they had also the character OF IN
Bill of Rights. They showed what some Of IN
rights Of citizens II the United States wore, an
those rights, privileges. and immunites Wel
carried forward and confirmed by the lou
teenth amendment. II was his belief that uI
less the privileges and immunities set forth
| the fTstten amendments were specifically sal
| I'm terms TO be merely limitations OF Federl
power they were privileges and immuniti'
which come within the purview OF inc iol
tecuth amendment and were guaranteed 10y
Justice Field "Ihen you would bring a
questions 70 this court. ! cannot conceive
any question which cannot be brought here
The fourteenth amendment makes the priv
leges and immunities' TO which itrefors incluc
, all those Of the first ten amendments
| Mr. Tucker said he would admit that II was
now question, but that he should like 70 arg
: It, Turning b. the action and rulings OF the tri
| court Mir. Tucker said that tho defence WEI
driven TO peremptory challenges IN order
| excludgc Jurors who should have been relecte
/ | for cause and that IN ,reby there was a limit
ton Of the right OF peremptory challeng
which this court has held to be one OF the ing
| est privileges Of "a prisoner.
1.-The last four jurOrs.n said Mr.. Tucke
!, awere nut upou Us after eur perempto
challenges haG been exhausted, In one ca
a | we objected distinctly upon the ground III
4 | the ruling of the court was in violation Of q
> | Constitution"
2 In conclusion Mr.. Tucker said We ha
e | the right In my judgment To be heard on {
question whether the Constitution has be
Violated In order TO compass the conviction
. these men. IL Is true they are said 20
Anarchists II the Court asks me whether
have any sympathy with them | have only
say that the Court knows me too VOL 70 sl
% nose that have any sympathy with theso u
> happy and misguided mon; but they are IN
- and they are entitled 20 the same prOtecu
- that ON. The same Constitution IS over a
. | ask the Court TO interpose It's SHE
!, and protect these men because | m
| need IL myself. ! know no anarchy aDrO
= n THIS land which the American people ne
- fshr except anarchy In the administration
n ! Justice / fear that anarchy dons the ormi
;, OF Justice and administers lynch-law IN ylo
- ton Of the supreme law Of the laAd. When
~ tho prisoners point can be sustained Is qu
!, ton you only can decide after an eXaminatl
= | Of the record and hearing. Strike after y
Ia hear but dent strike before you hear. PIT
m that the Court will therefore award this vi
for II / do not mistake, there are eyiden
IN this whole record which Will demand
v.rsal nf JUDGMENT